Jo Rowland

Project CARA

• CARA is designed to test the hypothesis that DA offenders subject to offending workshops are less likely to commit further DA offences than those who do not receive this intervention

• Conditional Caution is used as a vehicle to implement scheme

• Eligible individuals randomly assigned to treatment or control group

• Commenced August 2012

Project Area: Western

Hampshire

Eligibility Criteria • Adult male

• No previous convictions or cautions for violence in the previous two years

• Relationship between parties: Present or past intimate partners only

• Eligible Offences: minor assaults categorised by law as common assault and battery, criminal damage, harassment, threatening behaviour, domestic theft related offences

• Admission and/or CPS agree overwhelming evidence is present

• Past minor convictions permitted unless offender is currently serving a community based sentence or order

• DASH risk assessment assesses risk to victim as standard or medium

• Victim contacted and identifies no specific risk for the conditional caution to be issued

The Workshop s

• Workshop Provider: Hampton

Trust

– Specialist domestic abuse charity

with over 18 years experience

– Endorsed/Accredited by Respect

– National voice with regard to the

effective treatment of DA offenders

Workshops: Aims

• To understand the nature of physical violence and its purpose when used in intimate relationships

• To gain an understanding of the concept of emotional abuse and identify different types of abusive behaviours

• To recognise physical symptoms of anger and the feelings which lead to anger and then violence

• To understand the effects of domestic abuse on victims

• To increase understanding of children’s basic needs and to recognise the damaging effects of domestic abuse

• To establish personal time out strategies and safe conflict within an intimate relationship

• To identify future strategies for sustaining change

• To provide signposts to other relevant agencies/organisations (e.g. relate, alcoholics anonymous)

Capacity & Timing

• A workshop is held for new cases

once every 5 weeks

• The second workshop is held 4

weeks later

• Maximum of 14 participants,

typically contains between 4-7

individuals

Feedback from offenders

attending workshops

• 94% report that workshop has

changed attitude to partner

• 95% report that workshop has

prompted reflection of their own

behaviour

• 91% report that workshop has

assisted with issues within the

relationship

Workshops: Offender

feedback

• ‘The course leaders - very friendly,

approachable and had some very

wise words’

• ‘Sharing and being able to talk to

someone without being judged’

Workshops: What have

offenders learned?

• ‘I learned the risks with domestic violence and how communication and honesty with ourselves and our partners are important for a happy and successful partnership’

• ‘I have learnt to recognise risky situations and deal with them effectively’

• ‘Learning the short and long term affects of domestic violence has made me aware how my partner would have been feeling at the time’

Workshops: How have

offenders changed?

• ‘Not getting angry over things I can't control’

• ‘talking calmly and honestly’

• ‘Listening more and talking more constructively, less arguing’

• ‘To listen, to loosen up and not control my wife and family’

• ‘To listen to my partner and think before I speak to them’

Preliminary Results (as of

23rd September 2014) Disposal Number % of total

Charge 1784 39.2

Conditional Caution (inc Females) 256 5.6

Simple Caution 128 2.8

Final Warning 28 0.6

Reprimand 10 0.2

Youth Restorative Disposal (YRD) 15 0.3

Community Resolution 17 0.4

Summons 8 0.2

Youth Conditional Caution (YCC) 2 0.04

No Further Action (NFA) 2301 50.6

TOTAL 4549

Preliminary Results (as of

23rd September 2014)

Assessed for eligibility (n=4549)

Excluded Not meeting inclusion criteria

(n=4338)

Randomized as eligible (n=

211)

Allocated to Workshop (n=100)

Misassigned (n=10)

CPS refused (n=3)

Randomiser used

incorrectly (n=7)

Allocated to Control (n=111)

Misassigned (n=12)

CPS refused (n=6)

Randomiser used incorrectly

(n=6)

Allocation

Breached Non-reoffending Condition (n=8)

Breach by non-compliance with workshops

(n=6)

Breached Non-Reoffending condition (n=9)

Follow-Up

Analysed (n=65)

Excluded from analysis as still within 12

months from caution (n=35)

Analysed (n= 72)

Excluded from analysis as still within 12 months from caution (n=39)

Analysis

Reoffending: Rearrest

Prevalence at 12 months

post-caution Treatment Group Sample Size N with any arrests Percent Arrested

Control 72 14 20.3

Workshop 65 5 8.8

Difference 60.5% fewer

Rearrest Frequency at 12

months post-caution Treatment

Group

Sample Size N of Rearrests Arrests/Sample Arrests per 1000

Control 72 17 .236 236

Workshop 65 8 .123 123

Difference 48% fewer 113 fewer arrests for

workshops

Repeat DA Frequency at 12

months post-caution Treatment

Group

Sample Size N of Offences Offences/

Sample

Offences per 1000

Control 72 25 .347 347

Workshop 65 9 .138 138

Difference 60.2% fewer 209 fewer offences for

workshops

Summary

• Workshops delivered by independent professionals

• Intervention not counselling

• Feedback positive

• Cost effective

• And the victims…?

DA – The Victim’s View

• Study of victims in cases with arrest but

no prosecution

• Police policy is ‘positive arrest’ (and

risk-averse); very limited discretion;

consistency privileged over victim

preference.

• Main aim was to explore whether these

victims satisfied with police response

DA – The Victim’s View

• Study of victims in cases with arrest but

no prosecution

• Police policy is ‘positive arrest’ (and

risk-averse); very limited discretion;

consistency privileged over victim

preference.

• Main aim was to explore whether these

victims satisfied with police response

Victims’ reactions to police response

• 216 victims interviewed (81% response rate).

• All female victims of spousal abuse, but no cases prosecuted.

• All offenders had been arrested at time of incident or shortly after.

• Four disposals for this sample: – Conditional caution (14%)

– Conditional caution + counselling programme (15%)

– No further action (28%)

– Police simple caution (43%)

Survey outcomes - police response

to DA in Hampshire

• 60% had called police themselves (neighbours called in 11%)

• 76% satisfied or very satisfied

• 8% dissatisfied

• 78% said more likely to report future offending

• These results independent of type of disposal: victims more concerned with how police treated them than legal outcome.

• Single most important predictor of reporting future abuse is satisfaction with police response, namely: – Polite, respectful treatment

– Police doing all expected of them

– Keeping victim informed of final outcome

– NOT dependent on victim’s preference for arrest/not arrest

Jo Rowland

Predictor of future reporting

• Single most important predictor of reporting future abuse is satisfaction with police response, namely:

– Polite, respectful treatment

– Police doing all expected of them

– Keeping victim informed of final outcome

– NOT dependent on victim’s preference for arrest/not arrest

Jo Rowland

‘Reasons for ‘Dissatisfaction’

• 9% dissatisfied – 2 categories

– Victims did not consider an offence

has been committed, did not want

police to attend, did not agree with

the sanction.

– Victims felt sanction too lenient,

police rude, unsympathetic, did not

keep victim informed.

‘What did you want the police

to do?’ (more than one response allowed)

• Calm the situation (39%)

• Warn the offender (37%)

• Get offender to leave (31%)

• Arrest offender (28%) (though arrested in 100%)

• Prosecute offender (23%)

• Get help for offender (drugs, alcohol, anger etc) (57%)

• Apparent shift in expectations from traditional law enforcement to support.

Victim’s views

• 81.3% Victims involved in offences which resulted in the offender attending the workshop reported that subsequent behaviour improved in comparison with the control sample (44.8%)

• 6.3% of victms reported worsening behaviour (workshop) vs 24.1% (control)

Victim’s Feedback

• ‘The workshop helped him recognise the drinking was triggering his violence. They were a wake up call for him. He had to say what he did in front of others’.

• ‘Workshop has led to him applying to an adapt programme. He starts tonight. I am delighted with the police response’

• ‘The workshop helped him look at the way he deals with his anger’

• ‘The workshops made him think and he now leaves when he gets angry’

• ‘He found out about his need for bereavement counselling after his brother took his own life - he is actively doing voluntary work all because of the course’

• ‘He is more open about himself and now talks about how he feels. The course scared him a little because he saw men that were really violent and he didn’t want to become like them’

Could domestic abuse incidents be

dealt with other than by arrest..or

arrest alone?

• Victim satisfaction found to be much more about how they are treated than about outcome.

• The majority (57%) of victims wanted help with their

relationships and with the offender’s ‘problems’ rather than arrest

• Yet danger in relying entirely on victims’ wishes in

deciding what happens next (even though victims’ evidence relied on for successful prosecution).

• Is the present Criminal Justice response appropriate?

What happens to domestic

abuse cases after arrest?

A prospective longitudinal study of

over 2000 cases in Western

Hampshire

The Data Sample

• The sample consists of every arrest made between 12th March 2012 and 11th March 2013 that related to Domestic Abuse.

• Domestic Abuse is defined using the current Home Office definition:-

“Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. “

This can encompass but is not limited to the following types of abuse:

• psychological

• physical

• sexual

• financial

• emotional

The Research Method

• Descriptive study of 2244 cases which represented all DA arrests within Western Hampshire over a period of a year.

• Research details an initial basic frequency analysis of the whole sample and bivariate analysis cross-tabulating variables

e.g Gender and Court Verdict

Findings: Who is in the

sample? gender

Who is in the sample? Age

Who is in the Sample?

Previous Offences

What happens after arrest?

• 54% of cases are no further action

• 33.3% of arrests result in a charge

• 16.6% pleaded guilty at court

• 22.7% convicted

• 10.7% imprisoned*

What offences are in the

sample?

NFA by offence type

Do previous arrests impact

the outcome?

Do previous convictions

impact the outcome? % NFA with Conviction History

45.4

18.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

% with previous convictions for all crime % with convictions for DA

% o

f to

tal

wit

h/w

ith

ou

t p

revio

us

Policy Implications

• No Further Action is a majority outcome.

• Charges brought in 33.3% of cases only 22.7% successful.

• Leaves a total of 65.1% of cases not getting a successful outcome.

• Violence with injury the most likely to be NFA’d.

• Reoffending is higher for those charged than those NFA’d

Policy Implications

• 65.1% of cases are getting no outcome.

• In regular crime, restorative solutions are showing to be positive alternatives (or additions) to traditional court conviction.

• Use of restorative OOCDs could be a way in which those cases, falling below the standards of criminal evidence, can still get a positive outcome.

• But RJ or restorative outcomes are disallowed by policy as an outcome for Domestic Abuse cases.

Questions?